it's really not clear why this proceeding should be seen as a such a watershed in the wide-ranging patent war between Apple and its two Android-making competitors

Because Apple fanboys hate that Google and Android exist. And Florian Mueller is as anti-Google as they come, as we've learned, so FOSS Patents has no credibility.

The reality is that Apple has managed to patent an algorithm, something not typically allowed, but gets away with it under the "method" patents umbrella. Just like all software patents. And yet again, evidence mounts in favor of the argument that patent reform is necessary.

applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device

I could not find the actual heuristic in the document. There was a lot of talk of definitions and use contexts/cases but where is the actual "invention" (and do like to emphasize the quotes around the word invention).

1. A computing device, comprising:a touch screen display;one or more processors;memory; andone or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including:instructions for detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display;instructions for applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device; andinstructions for processing the command;wherein the one or more heuristics comprise:a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on an angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display;a two-dimensional screen translation heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to the two-dimensional screen translation command rather than the one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command based on the angle of initial movement of the finger contact with respect to the touch screen display; anda next item heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.

So basically, software that distinguishes between vertical scrolling and 2D scrolling, with the added invention of "selecting stuff from a list of stuff" or as the lawyers call it "determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items".

This is something that really needed the combined efforts of 24 inventors (count them!).

applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device

I could not find the actual heuristic in the document. There was a lot of talk of definitions and use contexts/cases but where is the actual "invention" (and do like to emphasize the quotes around the word invention).

It looks as if Apple patented the use of heuristics :-) Why do we need the patents like this? The heuristics required to determine the intent of the touch are fairly obvious. To call them an "invention" is an insult to inventors.

Haha! My distaste for fanboy behavior, abuse of of the patent system, and writers lacking in credibility hardly shows me to be a fanboy. I own a whole single Android device (Nexus 7) and am by no means an Android fan.

applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device

I could not find the actual heuristic in the document. There was a lot of talk of definitions and use contexts/cases but where is the actual "invention" (and do like to emphasize the quotes around the word invention).

It looks as if Apple patented the use of heuristics :-) Why do we need the patents like this? The heuristics required to determine the intent of the touch are fairly obvious. To call them an "invention" is an insult to inventors.

String together a bunch of prior art in ways that are immediately obvious to anyone working in the same field.

Patent it. Maybe make a minor, obvious change or refinement.

Sue the underpants off of everyone using anything similar.

Profit from lawsuits more than the arguable worth of the particular "innovation" in question, and then sue the underpants off of any innovation with a similar basis or that might even be considered tangentially related, because patents are really all about stalling innovation by anyone who wasn't first to market or who wasn't morally bankrupt with deep enough wallets to keep shoving random patents through until they stuck, these days.

applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device

I could not find the actual heuristic in the document. There was a lot of talk of definitions and use contexts/cases but where is the actual "invention" (and do like to emphasize the quotes around the word invention).

It looks as if Apple patented the use of heuristics :-) Why do we need the patents like this? The heuristics required to determine the intent of the touch are fairly obvious. To call them an "invention" is an insult to inventors.

I'm ever more convinced that Steve Jobs IS NOT a technology innovator after reading through this supposedly technology patent with his name on it that is completely devoid of any technical detail of inventiveness.

Read through it, there is a lot of "In some embodiments" but no detail or even evidence of an actual invention, just talk of what may be technically possible. That's not enough. If Steve Job's included in the patent "See iPhone for details", that would have been more concrete

So who wants to start an Ars patent troll firm? All of us commenters band together to come up with "ingenious" patent ideas, throw a little combined money at it, hire some lawyers, and reap the rewards of suing anyone and everyone.If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

So who wants to start an Ars patent troll firm? All of us commenters band together to come up with "ingenious" patent ideas, throw a little combined money at it, hire some lawyers, and reap the rewards of suing anyone and everyone.If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Haha! My distaste for fanboy behavior, abuse of of the patent system, and writers lacking in credibility hardly shows me to be a fanboy. I own a whole single Android device (Nexus 7) and am by no means an Android fan.

The opposite of fanboy is not "fanboy for the other side."

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the paid shill that is being quoted over and over again. Maybe I should post his "findings" during the Oracle vs Google case.

"a translation command [that] does not include the determination of such a command based on an angle of initial movement of the finger contact with respect to the touch screen display."

Even so, because points in the touch area are addressed using a coordinate system familiar to anyone who stayed awake in kindergarten geometry class, this "determination of such a command" is therefore obvious and non-novel, yes?

So who wants to start an Ars patent troll firm? All of us commenters band together to come up with "ingenious" patent ideas, throw a little combined money at it, hire some lawyers, and reap the rewards of suing anyone and everyone.If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

What would be fun is to find some flaw in usability or even a security flaw in some software, patent the fix (first to file is the rule these days) and sue the pants off of them when they try to upgrade or patch a security hole. Profit!!!!

String together a bunch of prior art in ways that are immediately obvious to anyone working in the same field.

Patent it. Maybe make a minor, obvious change or refinement.

Sue the underpants off of everyone using anything similar.

That there is called a business model.

Yeah, someone probably patented it since that's fine these days (wtf do people even think software IS when reduced to upper level abstractions like these patents), so I'm probably in deep trouble for posting it =(

would think at most apple gets 15 cents per android phone and the world moves on just as it did before, thats saying this is the "OMG best patent in the world and must be made essential."

Trouble w/this scenario is, Apple isn't going to license its kit, and can't be forced to. They use patents to differentiate their products rather than making money on the side by licensing them. So anyone using these 20 interface methods, and not working around them, is likely to face injunctions in various smartphone markets around the world.

I simply can't fathom how much prior art there is for this. On my old Motorola Ming, if you used the stylus to drag down the screen using the sidebar, but didn't go down in a perfectly straight line but drifted to the left, it still knew you wanted to go down and not sideways, or it also wouldn't stop going down either. Same thing happened on the desktop many years ago.

Same thing with touchpads from the past 10 years. It has to be able to give a little, otherwise it would never work reliably.

My other example I think about is in Zelda - when shooting an arrow at a switch, lots of times you never really hit it straight on, but the game registers a hit anyhow. That's a typical "heuristic". Otherwise, you'd be very frustrated shooting 10 arrows to get it perfectly right.

It's about a software keyboard but wants to claim priority to the original SJ's patent somehow. It's nice to see a totally irrelevant patent being tied to the earlier priority date to screw others in court.

it's really not clear why this proceeding should be seen as a such a watershed in the wide-ranging patent war between Apple and its two Android-making competitors

Because Apple fanboys hate that Google and Android exist. And Florian Mueller is as anti-Google as they come, as we've learned, so FOSS Patents has no credibility.

The reality is that Apple has managed to patent an algorithm, something not typically allowed, but gets away with it under the "method" patents umbrella. Just like all software patents. And yet again, evidence mounts in favor of the argument that patent reform is necessary.

Mueller isn't perfect, but he has actually been pretty accurate when discussing the Microsoft v Google/Motorola cases. How about reading with some context next time folks. He discusses patent cases and patent related strategies. When he says it's a major setback for Samsung. He means Samsung's case, not Samsung the company or the Samsung phone you are using. If he was as anti-google as everyone claims he is, he wouldn't be hosting his blog on a Google service (blogger).

it's really not clear why this proceeding should be seen as a such a watershed in the wide-ranging patent war between Apple and its two Android-making competitors

Because Apple fanboys hate that Google and Android exist. And Florian Mueller is as anti-Google as they come, as we've learned, so FOSS Patents has no credibility.

The reality is that Apple has managed to patent an algorithm, something not typically allowed, but gets away with it under the "method" patents umbrella. Just like all software patents. And yet again, evidence mounts in favor of the argument that patent reform is necessary.

Mueller isn't perfect, but he has actually been pretty accurate when discussing the Microsoft v Google/Motorola cases. How about reading with some context next time folks. He discusses patent cases and patent related strategies. When he says it's a major setback for Samsung. He means Samsung's case, not Samsung the company or the Samsung phone you are using. If he was as anti-google as everyone claims he is, he wouldn't be hosting his blog on a Google service (blogger).

He's already been shown wrong in this very article - Samsung already worked around the patents already, as noted by the ITC, which is why their newer phones were not banned and won't be.

As for your he isn't anti-google because he uses blogger? Oh that makes perfect sense! Microsoft must not be anti-google either since they use YouTube for their Scroogled campaign!

"Mueller's "the end is nigh" analysis was re-reported, with similar anti-Android tones and without the actual PTO document, on MacRumors, Apple Insider, and other Apple blogs."

I didn't read the other articles, but this is definitely misrepresentation of the MacRumors article. It mearly reported on the story factually and quoted FOSS as saying:

Quote:

"As we speak, the Steve Jobs patent is even stronger than it was before someone (presumably Samsung and Google) challenged it anonymously. On September 4, 2013, the USPTO issued a reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of all 20 claims because the prior art neither anticipated this invention nor renders it obvious."

This is clearly not the sensationalist rhetoric you made it out to be.

"The disclosed heuristics allow electronic devices with touch screen displays to behave in a manner desired by the user despite inaccurate input by the user." This is key that the user can be inaccurate for example not have their finger moving perfectly vertical on the display and still be able to scroll vertically.

Reading the patent claims and the summary it seems substantial and seems like it will be hard for other parties to work around (unless it becomes a SEP to be licensed on FRAND terms).

This is going to be interesting now that the 20 claims in the patent were upheld after the ex parte review.

it's really not clear why this proceeding should be seen as a such a watershed in the wide-ranging patent war between Apple and its two Android-making competitors

Because Apple fanboys hate that Google and Android exist. And Florian Mueller is as anti-Google as they come, as we've learned, so FOSS Patents has no credibility.

The reality is that Apple has managed to patent an algorithm, something not typically allowed, but gets away with it under the "method" patents umbrella. Just like all software patents. And yet again, evidence mounts in favor of the argument that patent reform is necessary.

Mueller isn't perfect, but he has actually been pretty accurate when discussing the Microsoft v Google/Motorola cases. How about reading with some context next time folks. He discusses patent cases and patent related strategies. When he says it's a major setback for Samsung. He means Samsung's case, not Samsung the company or the Samsung phone you are using. If he was as anti-google as everyone claims he is, he wouldn't be hosting his blog on a Google service (blogger).

He's already been shown wrong in this very article - Samsung already worked around the patents already, as noted by the ITC, which is why their newer phones were not banned and won't be.

As for your he isn't anti-google because he uses blogger? Oh that makes perfect sense! Microsoft must not be anti-google either since they use YouTube for their Scroogled campaign!

Can you provide any references for Samsung having worked around this patent?

"The disclosed heuristics allow electronic devices with touch screen displays to behave in a manner desired by the user despite inaccurate input by the user." This is key that the user can be inaccurate for example not have their finger moving perfectly vertical on the display and still be able to scroll vertically.

Reading the patent claims and the summary it seems substantial and seems like it will be hard for other parties to work around (unless it becomes a SEP to be licensed on FRAND terms).

This is going to be interesting now that the 20 claims in the patent were upheld after the ex parte review.

1. You clearly don't program software, especially games where the techniques described have been used for decades

2. Samsung already worked around it.

3. By definition, any GUI control via a finger or a mouse, by default, requires a heuristic to actually work. This is why this patent is an insult to those who know what they are talking about.

it's really not clear why this proceeding should be seen as a such a watershed in the wide-ranging patent war between Apple and its two Android-making competitors

Because Apple fanboys hate that Google and Android exist. And Florian Mueller is as anti-Google as they come, as we've learned, so FOSS Patents has no credibility.

The reality is that Apple has managed to patent an algorithm, something not typically allowed, but gets away with it under the "method" patents umbrella. Just like all software patents. And yet again, evidence mounts in favor of the argument that patent reform is necessary.

Mueller isn't perfect, but he has actually been pretty accurate when discussing the Microsoft v Google/Motorola cases. How about reading with some context next time folks. He discusses patent cases and patent related strategies. When he says it's a major setback for Samsung. He means Samsung's case, not Samsung the company or the Samsung phone you are using. If he was as anti-google as everyone claims he is, he wouldn't be hosting his blog on a Google service (blogger).

He's already been shown wrong in this very article - Samsung already worked around the patents already, as noted by the ITC, which is why their newer phones were not banned and won't be.

As for your he isn't anti-google because he uses blogger? Oh that makes perfect sense! Microsoft must not be anti-google either since they use YouTube for their Scroogled campaign!

Can you provide any references for Samsung having worked around this patent?

it's really not clear why this proceeding should be seen as a such a watershed in the wide-ranging patent war between Apple and its two Android-making competitors

Because Apple fanboys hate that Google and Android exist. And Florian Mueller is as anti-Google as they come, as we've learned, so FOSS Patents has no credibility.

The reality is that Apple has managed to patent an algorithm, something not typically allowed, but gets away with it under the "method" patents umbrella. Just like all software patents. And yet again, evidence mounts in favor of the argument that patent reform is necessary.

Mueller isn't perfect, but he has actually been pretty accurate when discussing the Microsoft v Google/Motorola cases. How about reading with some context next time folks. He discusses patent cases and patent related strategies. When he says it's a major setback for Samsung. He means Samsung's case, not Samsung the company or the Samsung phone you are using. If he was as anti-google as everyone claims he is, he wouldn't be hosting his blog on a Google service (blogger).

He's already been shown wrong in this very article - Samsung already worked around the patents already, as noted by the ITC, which is why their newer phones were not banned and won't be.

As for your he isn't anti-google because he uses blogger? Oh that makes perfect sense! Microsoft must not be anti-google either since they use YouTube for their Scroogled campaign!

Again, you are willfully ignoring context. Again, Mueller comments on patent cases and patent strategies.Do they have a work around for the old phones? No. You can argue, probably correctly, that a ban on old phones doesn't hurt Samsung the company, but that doesn't mean Samsung will win the case.

Blogs are a dime a dozen, youtube's are not. He could easily find a nongoogle service to host his blog. And I never claimed he was anti-google, just not nearly as anti-google as the fan-boys make him out to be.

it's really not clear why this proceeding should be seen as a such a watershed in the wide-ranging patent war between Apple and its two Android-making competitors

Because Apple fanboys hate that Google and Android exist. And Florian Mueller is as anti-Google as they come, as we've learned, so FOSS Patents has no credibility.

The reality is that Apple has managed to patent an algorithm, something not typically allowed, but gets away with it under the "method" patents umbrella. Just like all software patents. And yet again, evidence mounts in favor of the argument that patent reform is necessary.

Mueller isn't perfect, but he has actually been pretty accurate when discussing the Microsoft v Google/Motorola cases. How about reading with some context next time folks. He discusses patent cases and patent related strategies. When he says it's a major setback for Samsung. He means Samsung's case, not Samsung the company or the Samsung phone you are using. If he was as anti-google as everyone claims he is, he wouldn't be hosting his blog on a Google service (blogger).

He's already been shown wrong in this very article - Samsung already worked around the patents already, as noted by the ITC, which is why their newer phones were not banned and won't be.

As for your he isn't anti-google because he uses blogger? Oh that makes perfect sense! Microsoft must not be anti-google either since they use YouTube for their Scroogled campaign!

Again, you are willfully ignoring context. Again, Mueller comments on patent cases and patent strategies.Do they have a work around for the old phones? No. You can argue, probably correctly, that a ban on old phones doesn't hurt Samsung the company, but that doesn't mean Samsung will win the case.

Blogs are a dime a dozen, youtube's are not. He could easily find a nongoogle service to host his blog. And I never claimed he was anti-google, just not nearly as anti-google as the fan-boys make him out to be.

Mueller does a good job keeping track of all the various cases. That's it. As soon as he starts injecting his opinion on it, it's over. He's known to be a debbie downer for anything Google, even though he's been wrong time and time again.

Samsung doesn't sell those phones anymore as they are from 3 years ago. It doesn't hurt them except for having to work around it on their current phones. That's also kinda fairly standard practice; companies do that just in case they lose.

wherein the one or more heuristics comprise:a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on an angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display;